[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is spamd useful?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Is spamd useful?
- From: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:09:35 -0400
- Mail-followup-to: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Quoting Alexander Farber (Alexander_(_dot_)_Farber_(_at_)_t-online_(_dot_)_de):
> Is spamd really that useful? Won't the spammers
> just adjust their programs (once the critical mass
> is reached) to close connections whenever they see
> "250 Hello, spam sender. "?
1) most spam I get doesn't come from spammers.
It comes from (unwitting? witless?) relays.
And if they drop when the see it, it's good training.
I'll put it into my sendmail greeting.
2) I'm all for very quietly sending a 400 error
and letting them try over and over again.
quiet meaning sendmail doesn't fill logs with it.
The lag/delaying tactics (and the cute new start
with itty bitty TCP windows that just came in)
doesn't really do it for me. That's just revenge.
If you want it, then that's your choice.